Right, we all know that there are lots of "pro" AGW guys who read this, so my question is to all of them.

Please can someone tell me what amount (approximately, obviously) of CO2 was recently released by the volcanic eruption in Chile and also, how that compares with the amount that was saved (and at what expense) by the Kyoto Protocol.

I am asking so that we can discern whether all or some of our recent CO2 taxes and costs incurred in minimsing them have just been rendered either totally or partially redundant.

On another board on the subject of Zimbabwe, someone asked the following question:

Quote:

Where the hell are all those left-wing bleeding heart socialists and communists who condemmed white-ruled Rhodesia now

Here's the answer he got:

Quote:

I can tell you exactly where they are. They are currently engaged in a massive scheme to transfer wealth from the developed world into the hands of world's tin pot dictators such as Mugabe. They have enlisted the aid of a former vice-president of the United States who travels in the lap of luxury to be paid to spread the message to willing minions, making a fortune in the process. They will funnel this massive transfer of wealth through the same people who engaged in the oil for food scandal who are, even as we speak, incorporating companies to pilfer more than their pound of flesh. They are only now bringing to bear the full power of their most trusted henchmen, the liberal media. They are subverting the efforts of the entire scientific community by vilifying and threatening anyone who dares question their plans. This, for them could be their greatest and most extensive stratagem. Greater even than their threats of 20 years ago that the entire world would be infected with AIDS. They have given it a name: Global Warming

Indians? More concerned with the “impacts of their lifestyle choices on the environment”? The Chinese? Have these green cause-pushers never been to India, China or any other developing country to check out how little the locals care about the environment in their scramble to stop being so damn poor? That’s why New Delhi’s air looks like this:

SET 18 said
"Right, we all know that there are lots of "pro" AGW guys who read this, so my question is to all of them.

Please can someone tell me what amount (approximately, obviously) of CO2 was recently released by the volcanic eruption in Chile and also, how that compares with the amount that was saved (and at what expense) by the Kyoto Protocol.

I am asking so that we can discern whether all or some of our recent CO2 taxes and costs incurred in minimsing them have just been rendered either totally or partially redundant."

Aviate rummaged........

Yearly CO2 output by Mother Nature is 200+ billion tons. Manmade CO2 adds 7+ billion tons - so around 3.5%. How our measly 3.5% affects so drastically the other 96.5% I am at a loss to know!

The UK produces around 1.6% of mankind's 3.5%. So David Cameron's heroic attempt to go Green will do - precisely nothing! Aviation's part is barely noticeable [0.105% of all CO2 output! What is the hysteria all about!]

Volcanic eruption CO2 output varies enormously. However even truly massive eruptions do not put a spike on yearly CO2 output graphs so they can't be that large.

CO2 as a part of all atmospheric gases is 0.036%! 99% is Nitrogen and Oxygen. Water Vapour [partly absorbed by the atmosphere or clouds when not] is around 4%.

Ex Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, has recently written a book questioning the reality and impact of GW. He had great trouble finding a publisher as anyone questioning the validity of GW is seen as a warlock/witch. He found a small, private publisher in the US who agreed that the questions need to be asked. I am of the opinion that the question is entirely moot, one way or the other. What we do in the 'West' will pale into total insignificance in light of the fact that China and India between them will open a new, coal or oil fired power station every week for the next seven years. China has seventeen new airports under construction, with a further twenty three to be built in the next ten years. Indian air travel will grow by 7% a year for the foreseeable future. China has not published a figure, as far as I can find, but if it is the same as India then in eight years there will be twice as many flights as today in these two countries. China has one in every five of the worlds' population. India and China make up one quarter of the worlds' population. If we shut down the whole of UK PLC today, it would take China and India one month to consume the energy saved by such a spirited and selfless action. Why do we bother? Because it is politically correct to be seen to do something. Because there is a great deal of tax to be collected on Carbon Duty. Reality sucks.

Nigel Lawson was being interviewed on the Beeb (radio) yesterday, and he highlighted the fallacy about 'growing' fuel - the vast quantities of water needed to cultivate these crops when regions were desperate for that water (and the food that it would otherwise grow). Whilst I am all in favour of recycling (I grew up in post-war Britain and was raised with the ethic of make-do-and-mend and never to discard anything that might come in useful) I'm also sceptical about the efficiency of the waste-management regime as practiced by local authorities. In order to collect the contents of the wheelie-bins (which in themselves had to be manufactured and distributed) new complex vehicles have been required and waste-transfer stations constructed where the garbage is moved around several times before being loaded into containers that are then transported to who-knows where? It seems to be an activity that feeds on itself rather than being disposal (and salvaging) of the things that we throw away. The items that the local authority will accept in the recycling bins has been seriously reduced and we must now ourselves transport glass and cardboard several miles drive to the recycling centre (for those who have suitable transport of course). They no longer accept food containers, merely plastic drink bottles (in addition to paper and thin card). At least the recycling centre now accepts garden waste and timber.

The items that the local authority will accept in the recycling bins has been seriously reduced and we must now ourselves transport glass and cardboard several miles drive to the recycling centre (for those who have suitable transport of course). They no longer accept food containers, merely plastic drink bottles (in addition to paper and thin card).

This kind of thing is a consequence of over privatisation, the local authorities contractors just push the expensive parts of the problem back on the rate payer. A fine argument for a planned economy if ever there was one.

Quote:

Nigel Lawson was being interviewed on the Beeb (radio) yesterday, and he highlighted the fallacy about 'growing' fuel

Interesting and probably correct but when seen from an historical prospective, fuel (in the form of grain) to feed draught horses could once only be grown. The famous Year without a Summer of 1816, (following the third of a series of volcanic erruptions within about 3 years) and widespread crop failure throughout Europe arguably led to

Quote:

The lack of oats to feed horses may have inspired the German inventor Karl Drais to research new ways of horseless transportation, which led to the invention of the Draisine or velocipede. This was the ancestor of the modern bicycle and a step towards mechanized personal transport.[8]

Why not have councils issue everyone with a blank recycling book together with their annual council tax paperwork and have the existing council recycling centres provide a stamp for every wheely-bin sized load of sorted and recyclable material. Each filled page in the recycling book entitles the holder to 0.1% off their next council tax bill.

Reckon within a few weeks you'd have people sorting cans and bottles all night and queuing up to recycle (because the centres are only open between 11am and 2pm). Before you can say 'only the State can run public services' you'd have businesses springing up offering to streamline the process on behalf of householders by collecting and even sorting all their crap for them and their price would have an effective cap as a %age of the council tax discounts.

Before you can say 'eco-taxes are just marketing BS by councils' you'd find that a large proportion of the council employed waste collection resource including the penpushers would be effectively redundant and can go work in the burgeoning private sector waste collection sector and taxes could go down further.

Planet saved (oh yes it will be my son!) and we have more money now and our children have more money in future as their funding function for mugabesque State pensions will be lower too. Win-win situation if you ask me. Except for the politicians. Oh, they make the rules don;t they - DOH!

Each filled page in the recycling book entitles the holder to 0.1% off their next council tax bill.

Eh? But that doesn't raise any taxes does it.

Obviously therefore a stupid idea!

A far better one would be to just raise council taxes because you now need to employ "rubbish bin inspectors" who will go through your bins and if there is anything recyclable in them then you will be fined lots of money.

The money raised in fines will obviously not go into anything useful but instead can be spent on more employees looking at how the councils can increase its awareness of the plight of one-legged lesbian immigrants or some other such irrelevant minority.

Interesting documentary on the National Geographic channel the other day called 'Saved by the Sun........?'. It was interesting in that it explored the connection with climate change over the millenia and the sun. The effect sunspots have on the temperature of the Earth and it examined why sunspots were related to the amount of cosmic rays hitting the Earth and whether the amount of cosmic rays hitting us had an effect on the climate. All well and good.

But I was sitting there wondering when they were going to mention the 500 pound gorilla in the background. Eventually they got to it and mentioned AGW towards the end with a very small piece. But, warned one talking head, just because the sun may reduce global temperatures for a hundred years or so, doesn't mean we should lose the focus on reducing emissions!

So they nodded to the consensus. But the entire program effectively pointed to the sun as the main arbiter of the global climate, nevertheless the programme makers weren't going to stick their head over the parapet and say that it has a bigger influence than our puny emissions. But the very title of the programme hinted at something. 'Saved by the sun......?'

If they were more explicit, they might have suffered a similar fate to Nigel Lawson. No one will publish, because people believe in AGW and woe betide anyone who tries to break up the consensus.

"rubbish bin inspectors" who will go through your bins and if there is anything recyclable in them then you will be fined lots of money.

Whereas at present they rummage through the recyclable bins and issue fines for non-recyclable materials that have been included . . . (or in fact materials that are recyclable but have been put in the wrong container).

An old fella in Norwich has been called over the coals for putting cabbage stalks in his garden waste bin. According to the local council these are in fact "kitchen waste". This may have something to do with the number of Green Party councillors being elected in the city as most are aware that these people have,at best,a tenuous grasp on reality. Although they do have quite nice sandals.